Ocean News

Soil crisis brought about by climate change may hit global food production, claims alarming new research | Independent

 

A masterful parody, sir. Nice work. Unfortunately, there really are people who will take your post seriously.

 

Why would you make an asinine claim that looking at temperatures for past 20 years in support of my claim no significant warming during past 20 years is "cherry picking"?

I'm sure you would prefer to look at 1820s to verify temperatures over recent 20 years.

Recent 20 years doesn't justify AGW predictions. Refutes the AGW hypothesis.

 

Wasn't a parody and was serious.
Take a management seminar in understanding people sometime.
I did.
Might open your eyes that not everyone thinks alike.
And the obvious to one person is the ridiculous to another, because of differences in thinking based on native personality traits unique to each individual.
People share common traits, but the mixture of many traits and degree, is unique for each person.
One trait is the feeler/thinker trait and everybody is somewhere on the scale between those two extremes.
Liberals tend to be on the feeler side of center.
They can't modify or learn a different way of thinking. It's inherent.
In other words, they were born to think that way.

 

Yes, I know. I was parodying you. Your post was really quite extraordinary.

All of this was already obvious. I've known it for decades.

Yes, I know this too. I do not actually expect you to change your thinking. I realise that would be asking too much, so I'm only here for the amusement.

 

I'm glad you are amused.

 

After 17 years of research, he concludes needs more research. Renew the grant please.

 

So I now have a bit more time, and looked at your supporting references for atmospheric CO2 vs heating ability being logarithmic (which I agree with).

In your first reference, by Pielke, he offers the following logarithmic chart:

The concentration of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is about 400ppm. From this chart it can be seen that the doubling of CO2 from 200ppm to 400ppm coincided with a temperature increase of 1 to 1.5C. The next doubling of CO2, from 400ppm to 800ppm, is shown to correlate to a temperature increase of about 2C. So while Pielki agrees that CO2/temperature has a logarithmic function, the particular equation he selected to model the relationship does not support your contention that temperature has "flat-lined" at our current CO2 level of 400ppm.

The second URL you gave, a blog called KnowledgeDrift, also posted a chart purporting to show the logarithmic relation this time between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 heat forcing, shown as watts/sq meter.



Assuming there is a linear relation between forcing and temperature, we can again see from this chart that forcing/temperature is not anywhere close to flat-lining at CO2 levels of 400ppm. In fact, it appears that increased forcing will still be occurring when atmospheric CO2 levels are at five times their current levels (400ppm x 5 = 2000ppm).

I don't know that either of your two references represent the current best understanding of climate scientists. I have a vague recollection of a post I made not too long ago which said (IIRC) that if CO2 levels again double (to 800ppm) that we should expect temperature increases of 1-3C. I think this analysis was made from looking back through the geological record for similar CO2 patterns to the one we could expect to happen if we keep burning fossil fuels under a business-as-usual plan.

We could also look at your more recent proposal to remove 2015 from the temperature charts, because it is an El Nino year, and thus eventually will be followed cooler years.

But if we agree to remove 2015 (and probably 2016 as well), then why not also remove all the other strong El Nino years, such as 1998? And just to be fair, shouldn't we remove the cooler La Nina years too? If we acquiesce to your strange request, what does that leave us with? Basically, the same up-trending chart, just a bit smoother than before, with no significant indication of not continuing to increase.

Bottom Line:
Accepting that there is a logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperature increase does not necessarily mean that we are anywhere close to 'flat-lining temperatures' at a CO2 level of 400ppm. So as others have repeatedly said, Yob, your arguments that we can continue to add CO2 to our atmosphere with no need for concern are totally unpersuasive.

 

Earth Soils May Curb Global Warming By Locking Greenhouse Gases | TechTimes

 

World Bank goes big on fighting climate change | CNBC

 

Another conjunction..,. borseapples.

Typos, conjunctions, projections...how about this, what is this anomaly called?

You say this...

This is the headline from the article you cited above...

You say The Nieners cause warmer temperatures and yet the very article you draw that information from says they are the result of warmer temperatures.

 

Warmers threaten Americans' 1st Amendment right to free speech and assembly.

http://rightwingnews.com/climate-change/virgin-islands-ag-goes-private-climate-skeptic-group/

 

This poll shows just how much we Americans care about the opinions of AGW alarmists. http://rightwingnews.com/climate-change/agw-today-new-killer-poll-brings-da-humor/

 

Quote
We’re speeding toward a climate change catastrophe — and that makes 2016 the most important election in a generation

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/10/wer..._the_most_important_election_in_a_generation/

As the Harvard scholar Graham Allison wrote back in 2004, a nuclear bomb destroying a major U.S. city before 2014 is “more likely than not.” Similarly, the dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, Robert Gallucci, noted in 2005 that “it is more likely than not that al-Qaeda or one of its affiliates will detonate a nuclear weapon in a US city within the next five to ten years.”

These are not anomalous probability estimates. They represent the opinions of many of the most knowledgeable experts about the issue of nuclear terrorism. Indeed, a survey of 85 national security experts in 2005 found that “60 percent of the respondents assessed the odds of a nuclear attack within 10 years at between 10 and 50 percent, with an average of 29.2 percent.” Nearly 80 percent of those polled said the attack would come from a terrorist organization. Fortunately, an act of nuclear terrorism has not yet occurred. But, as was the case during the Cold War, we may have luck more than anything else to thank for this outcome.

But nuclear terrorism probably isn’t the most significant risk that the 45th president of the United States will have to confront. Rather, this title goes to the ongoing, slow-motion catastrophe of anthropogenic climate change — a phenomenon that threatens not just the future prosperity of the U.S., but the survival of the entire global village. The fact is that climate change will result in a range of catastrophic consequences, including extreme heat waves, the spread of infectious disease, megadroughts, coastal flooding, desertification, food supply disruptions, widespread biodiveristy loss (e.g., the sixth mass extinction), mass migrations, social unrest and political instability — to name just a few.

And multiple high-ranking U.S. officials have affirmed a causal connection between climate change and terrorism. For example, John Brennan, the current Director of the CIA, recently stated that “the impact of climate change” is one of the “deeper causes of this rising instability” in countries like Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Libya. Similarly, Chuck Hagel, the former secretary of defense, describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that “has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today — from infectious disease to terrorism.” And the Department of Defense notes in a 2015 report that “Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries.”

Consider some recent data that underline the fact that climate change is a “clear and present danger.” As of this writing, the hottest month on record was last February.

 

This poll from Right Wing News sort of highlights how out of touch RWs are.

The top 5 concerns are about their money.

Of the next 6, 4 are concerned about their food and how fat they are.

The site linked to in the article is a blog by this person



It is called "Pork Network", with articles about the second annual Bacon Expo at Iowa State University, National Pork Board plans, hog nutrition, etc. I don't know why it links to that site, perhaps that's where the poll originated.

Of the 2 concerns left, one is involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is probably about their money also, as in " My hard earned taxes ...!"
(Damn you, Obama!)

Number 11 is 'global warming'. If this thread is indicative of what the actual global warming issues are that the RWers are concerned about, I would bet it's how their hard earned tax money is being squandered and not about a real GW issue, such as where their future double bacon cheeseburgers are going to come from when the climate shifts and agriculture takes a dive.

Their summation is
"So, treatment of pigs, chickens, and Bessie the cow beat out AGW."

It's hard to argue against facts like that.